Legal Opinion

Jacuzzi v. Jacuzzi

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 1918No. Civ. No. 1846PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Plaintiff sued defendants for a sum of money, alleging that the debt was incurred by defendants for work and labor performed at defendants’ request. Appellant Remington filed an answer denying the indebtedness, and also a cross-complaint, to which plaintiff made denial. The court found that plaintiff was entitled to recover, and ren-. dered judgment accordingly. This appeal was taken from the judgment and is presented on the judgment-roll alone. ■ The contentions of appellant are that the court failed to find on the issue as to the nonpayment of the plaintiff’s claim, and also failed to make…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Melone v. RuffinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Kusel v. KuselCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Richards v. Travelers' InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Grant v. SheerinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Stewart v. HollingsworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Parker v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Llano Investment Co. v. MintonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Lovelace v. FreeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API